12

Context: I am currently working on a rather important paper for my career, in the sense that it is a culmination of the past 5 years of (post Ph.D.) research. I started this particular article with 3 other members but only 1 other member (senior) has contributed. The other two likely cannot even explain our contribution non-superficially.

Trouble: The other two are very senior researchers and influential community members. However, I should note that they are in no way my boss (i.e. I am a junior prof.).

Question: How can I signal that the other contributor and myself are the main (if not only) contributors to the researchers, without changing the author ordering or removing the other two?

I cannot do the latter for political issues and the former is bad practice in analysis…. Any advice? What about putting an asterisk and footnote on our name, flagging principal investigation? I've seen this done in computer science….

LSpice
  • 11,423
ABIM
  • 5,039
  • 18
    To me this fundamentally looks like a social problem, I don't think there can be a technical solution... – Sam Hopkins Oct 29 '22 at 21:58
  • 2
    That being said, perhaps splitting the content of the research into multiple papers could help? – Sam Hopkins Oct 29 '22 at 21:59
  • 2
    @SamHopkins Yes I thought of this also, it's a good idea. I guess if I'm in my 30s and everyone else is in their 60s, maybe it's implicitly understood that I'm not in thevback seat but rather i am a principal contributor?.. Donno – ABIM Oct 29 '22 at 22:02
  • 39
    Let me be clear: if some of the listed "authors" literally contributed nothing to the research, then having them listed as authors is academic dishonesty. – Sam Hopkins Oct 29 '22 at 22:05
  • 5
    Have you asked the other significant contributor's opinion? – bof Oct 29 '22 at 22:05
  • 3
    In mathematical culture, authorship represents a significant intellectual contribution to the work. Listing them as authors if they haven't contributed is unethical and could lead to your paper being rejected on that basis (or worse). – verret Oct 29 '22 at 22:07
  • 13
    See for example http://www.ams.org/about-us/governance/policy-statements/sec-ethics "All the authors listed for a paper, however, must have made a significant contribution to its content, and all who have made such a contribution must be offered the opportunity to be listed as an author. Because the free exchange of ideas necessary to promote research is possible only when every individual's contribution is properly recognized, the Society will not knowingly publish anything that violates this principle." – verret Oct 29 '22 at 22:07
  • 3
    How did they come to be there in the first place? Who initiated the project? – Hercule Poirot Oct 29 '22 at 22:09
  • 1
    @HerculePoirot I started the project, and one of the authors said that they were experts who are so great (bla bla), I invited them excited for our intellectual exchange, but it never happened. Only two people on zoom every month saying void comments... – ABIM Oct 29 '22 at 22:13
  • 1
    @SamHopkins and verret: yes I also feel this way. I mean this is my main issue. I don't want them to attract students if they are incapable of guiding them. It's just wrong.... – ABIM Oct 29 '22 at 22:14
  • @bof I will, this is an excellent idea. But frightening since they have collaborated for 20 years or so... – ABIM Oct 29 '22 at 22:15
  • 1
    "political issues" sounds too serious. Perhaps you could give more details on why you can't remove them from your research. – efs Oct 29 '22 at 22:16
  • 1
    @efs they organize many conferences workshops in my niche, they are connected to nearly every top researcher in my area, and they will say their negative opinion of me if I "upset them" by kicking them off the paper.... so it seems I'm stuck at an impass... – ABIM Oct 29 '22 at 22:23
  • 22
    Coauthors that don't work and that don't bow out when they should are an eternal problem. – H A Helfgott Oct 29 '22 at 22:25
  • 9
    @AIM I am not sure there is any formal way to do this by your own action and certainly not one which will not create more troubles than it is worth. However, it seems to me that you should first talk to your other contributing coauthor, maybe they feel differently to you or maybe they have a suggestion what to do. In any case, before you act you should talk to these two other people, separately. This is the fair thing to do and maybe if you will raise the issue, they will agree with you and suggest to remove their authorship. Good luck! – Yiftach Barnea Oct 29 '22 at 22:40
  • @YiftachBarnea Thanks, this is a very good idea tbh. I appreciate it and prefer this for the above suggestion of cutting a paper in two (it should be 1 for full umph). – ABIM Oct 29 '22 at 22:44
  • 9
    A comment on the concept of "contribution". When a group of people work on a problem, it is almost always the case that the key ideas in the solution come from a proper subset. That doesn't mean the others didn't contribute. Actively taking part in the discussion is contribution too. – Brendan McKay Oct 29 '22 at 23:52
  • 6
    Whatever you can do within the paper to demarcate the different contributions is of course legitimate, but what I wouldn't do is speaking or hinting behind the back of the co-authors that they did not quite contribute. Generally, if a the paper is important and others will want to collaborate, it's almost inevitable that they will eventually realize who the active authors were. It may worth accepting a measure of unfairness with grace and humor, and such situations, usually, have a way of rectifying themselves. – Yaakov Baruch Oct 30 '22 at 00:14
  • @YaakovBaruch This is true, and I guess this has happened in the past to me so ill try to keep it in mind. Thanks, very helpful and wise :) – ABIM Oct 30 '22 at 02:45
  • 1
    Suppose that you could indeed somehow convey to the readers of your paper that some of your coauthors did not contribute anything of significance. How exactly do you imagine you can do this so that the general reader will notice your insinuation that your coauthors X and Y did not contribute anything but your coauthors X and Y will not? – Adam Přenosil Oct 30 '22 at 21:02
  • 1
    Are you sure that they contributed absolutely nothing to the article? You at least need to discuss with the senior author and then allow the other author to describe what they contributed to the article and how they contributed, which may include things that did not occur to you. – Hollis Williams Oct 31 '22 at 11:27
  • 2
    As someone that works in applied fields (engineering/physical sciences) where everyone and their mum gets authorship: Have an "author contributions" section in the paper, after acknowledgments. In fact, many Elsevier paper require this now, as its so blatant in many fields. – Ander Biguri Oct 31 '22 at 16:21
  • 1
    @AnderBiguri I agree that this new Author Contributions section being introduced in many science papers is very helpful. – Hollis Williams Oct 31 '22 at 20:07
  • 1
    @HollisWilliams Yes, one of them had only come to 3 meetings at the beginning and only made jokes. – ABIM Nov 17 '22 at 00:03
  • @efs By "political" I mean that I am cosupervising a student with them and they are contributing the funding since in my county grants are incomparably smaller. – ABIM Nov 17 '22 at 00:04
  • I believe that Ralph Alpher was bitter about the Alpher-Bethe-Gamow paper to his dying day. – Timothy Chow Nov 21 '22 at 19:45
  • @TimothyChow this is interesting trivia. Didn't know tbh, but that'd a much worse situation imo – ABIM Nov 22 '22 at 02:21
  • 1
    @SamHopkins: It's academic dishonesty, and it's pervasive throughout mathematics. The vast majority of my collaborators haven't contributed anything at all to the paper. – shuhalo May 05 '23 at 08:32

1 Answers1

31

It seems clear to me that you need to talk to the senior author who actually did contribute and see if they can talk to the other two. You wrote that "one of the authors said that they were experts who are so great (bla bla)" so it sounds like it wasn't really your choice to add them in the first place.

Let's call the good author G. Let's assume G actually cares about your career (e.g., wants to keep working with you in the futute, wants you to get a permanent job, etc.). Then, G should be receptive if you TACTFULLY express your concern to him/her that the paper won't help your career as much with 4 authors as it would with 2. While you feel like you haven't seen any "substantial" contribution from the other 2, it is always possible they have been communicating with G and that some of G's contributions are in fact due to them.

If G agrees with you that the contributions of the other two don't warrant authorship, then G can fight this battle on your behalf, rather than having you try to signal it some way in the writing, which is most likely going to come off looking petulant and unprofessional. If G fights the battle on your behalf, you won't face the professional consequences you fear.

It's also possible that G won't be able to get them off the paper. In that case, G can still soften the blow by giving talks that state that you did most of the work, and writing the same in letters of recommendation for you. At all costs, do not alienate G.

For context, in my first paper, I invited my advisor to be a co-author because he'd made substantial contributions. He declined, telling me that I needed the paper more than he did. I still put a huge acknowledgment to thank him for his help. I have since paid this forward, sometimes helping people a lot but not ending up as an author (especially post-tenure). That's how a good field should function. If G is good, they will understand this and find a way to help you be successful.

David White
  • 29,779
  • 3
    I totally agree! – Yiftach Barnea Oct 29 '22 at 22:51
  • 12
    Agree with most but not with not adding names when substantial contributions have been made. From experience I know from my postdoc in the UK that advisors there tend not to put their name even if they did the majority of the work, but in other countries the usual co-author rule is followed (or worse...). Not putting your name when you did a lot of work gives your students an unfair advantage as they will be perceived as more independent which is far from always the case. – Hercule Poirot Oct 30 '22 at 01:49
  • 4
    Please read this answer carefully. In mathematics, as in almost all other areas, building good relationships tends to be more important than anything else. Don't lose the war over the outcome of a single battle. – Stanley Yao Xiao Oct 30 '22 at 02:06
  • @StanleyYaoXiao Thanks for the advise. This helps also, also this is from the Art of War no? – ABIM Oct 30 '22 at 02:43
  • 2
    @HerculePoirot I agree with that for post-thesis work, but for thesis advising the line between teaching and collaborating is blurred, and it's common practice and understanding (at least in most of pure math) that the advisor contributes a lot typically without coauthorship. – Kimball Oct 30 '22 at 06:12
  • 4
    @Kimball, this is not true in all countries, and definitely differs a lot by advisor, thus creating disparities between students applying for postdocs. Some students may have written the thesis without any substantial help but can't be differentiated that way. Making this distinction to some extent would make selecting postdocs easier. Also I don't think contributing a lot (in terms of helping on technical details) was standard practice say 20-30 years ago but is a consequence of the vastly increased number of PhD students. – Hercule Poirot Oct 30 '22 at 07:21
  • 2
    @HerculePoirot I'm not saying this practice doesn't have it's issues, but I am saying it is a widely recognized practice, and many people on hiring committees won't give applicants as much credit if all of their thesis work is joint with their advisor---see https://mathoverflow.net/q/57337/6518 – Kimball Oct 30 '22 at 10:50
  • @HerculePoirot I think letters of recommendation can get at the kind of distinction you refer to. When we hire, we look for letters from advisors saying things like "this is the strongest student I've ever advised" and that the student is motivated, independent, and has a fruitful research program. Also, strong students often have side projects, and strong letters of recommendation from others they've worked with. Stronger students will write better research statements and give a better job talk. The authorship of the first papers matters less than the above items. – David White Oct 30 '22 at 11:52
  • 4
    Remember also that the whole system is unfair. Certain research areas are "hotter" than others. Different areas publish at different rates, with different average waiting times for a referee report, etc. Homotopy theory suffers because our papers tend to be quite long and technical, referee reports often take a year or more, and most mathematicians are not aware of the current state and value of our field. Advisor co-authorship is very different for a graph theorist, who finishes four papers before graduating, than for a homotopy theorist who finishes one, even if they are equally strong. – David White Oct 30 '22 at 11:59
  • 3
    You make some good points, but I think many of us have seen reference letters by advisors who are extremely lucky, every year they have "the strongest student they have ever advised", sometimes even more than one:-). – Hercule Poirot Oct 31 '22 at 06:07